DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> SLR
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/04/2003 05:19:06 PM · #1
Could any of you be so nice and explain to me what the diffrent btw a SLR camera and a one that is not SLR?

I am new to this photography thingy, and I am the kind of guy that wants to understand how electronics and mechanics work, and my new EOS 10D is a little too expensive for me to tear apart just yet;)
07/04/2003 05:21:16 PM · #2
Typically, an SLR will allow you to change the lenses, and will have greater range in Fstops and aperature settings than a non-SLR camera.
07/04/2003 05:29:48 PM · #3
ok thanx Karen that covers some of what I wanted to know;)..

from what i found out SLR stands for SingleLensReflex.....but my stupid head does not quite figure out just yet what that means........
07/04/2003 05:36:28 PM · #4
as I understand it.. the lens is the bit that goes on the front.. the light that is metered and the light used to take the image both come through this lens... that's the single bit...Oh and you are looking through the viewfinder via this lens also by means of a mirror.. When you press the shutter the internal mirror flips up allowing all the light onto the image plane.. I think this is the reflex bit..
07/04/2003 05:37:52 PM · #5
The big thing is that an SLR uses only one lens - mirrors are used internally to allow you to look through the lens when you look through the viewfinder. Other cameras use 2 lenses a viewfinder and one to take the picture.

The big advantage is that you see pretty much exactly what the shot will be (usually at least 95% of the final shot) compared to something like 75% on cameras that use a separate viewfinder
07/04/2003 05:37:54 PM · #6
this might help more

//entertainment.howstuffworks.com/camera.htm
07/04/2003 08:08:50 PM · #7
Thanx alot you guys!

Now I know alot more then I did when i posted this quiz of mine:D
07/04/2003 10:17:17 PM · #8
I'm wondering what the advantage of having SLR is now that digital cameras have the screen on the back. Wasn't the whole concept of SLR so you could use the viewfinder accurately? Now with a screen on the back, it's quite easy to frame your shot 100% accurately. So what is the use of paying big bucks for the "SLR"?

I do see a huge advantage to having interchangeable lenses, I wish my camera would do that. It's one of the reasons I would buy a better camera, in addition to the added f-stop and shutter speed flexibility.
07/04/2003 10:32:16 PM · #9
optical viewfinders are very nice compared to a digital one.. very sharp and easy to focus in.. Manual focusing with a digital viewfinder is a bit of a pain sometimes..


07/05/2003 08:56:08 AM · #10
Originally posted by briphoto:

I'm wondering what the advantage of having SLR is now that digital cameras have the screen on the back. Wasn't the whole concept of SLR so you could use the viewfinder accurately? Now with a screen on the back, it's quite easy to frame your shot 100% accurately. So what is the use of paying big bucks for the "SLR"?

I do see a huge advantage to having interchangeable lenses, I wish my camera would do that. It's one of the reasons I would buy a better camera, in addition to the added f-stop and shutter speed flexibility.


The LCD finders quite often don't show the whole scene.

You have to hold the camera away from your face , about the least stable way to take a picture.

The 'preview' quality is vastly superior through an SLR compared to a small LCD - try it and you'll see

Har to judge focus on an LCD preview
07/05/2003 09:05:05 AM · #11
An SLR shows the actual View through the lens. Most, if not all, also allow you to Preview the shot with the lens closed down to the set aperature allowing you to see the depth of field
07/30/2003 10:21:51 AM · #12
Sorry to bump this thread, but I'm asking a question on a very similar topic. I'm thinking about becoming in the market for a SLR camera (not DSLR -ducks-), but I need to do some research about what kind of cameras are good and their features and preferably what current owners are thinking. If you know of a website that could get me started, I would be much obliged. Also, if you happen to have an inside scoop on places where I can buy online, that would be cool to.

And just so there is a fair exchange of information //www.bhphotovideo.com has alot of good stuff. I've bought from them before and I found that their website is amazingly easy to use (and the "talk to a csr" feature is soooo useful).
07/30/2003 12:18:01 PM · #13
//www.photo.net is good.

I'd give the same advice if you were considering an SLR or a DSLR though - forget about the body - work out which lens system you want. Find out which lenses best meet your needs/ price points. You'll be using them probably a lot longer than you'll be using the particular camera body you buy. Also consider that you may want to get a DSLR later - if you make the right lens system choice, you can also use the lenses with that DSLR.

This may narrow your lens choices down to canon mount or nikon mount - from there, you can work out which body would be best too.
07/30/2003 12:30:02 PM · #14
There is a difference between Nikon and Canon on just philosophy issues.

Nikon seems to like the 1.5x crop factor for their chipsets. It's standardized. Nikon also came out with lenses for wide angle that will use that crop factor (which means the lens will not work with 35 mm film cameras, even though they will mount, meter, and autofocus correctly). You can bet that they won't attempt to do full frame for a while if they're coming out with lenses specifically for the 1.5x crop.

Canon does not. Canon has full frame (1Ds), 1.3x crop (1D), and 1.6x crop (10D/D60/D30). And Canon has not come out with a "DX" series wide angle lens similar to Nikon yet, so that pretty much means Canon is going for full frame at some point in the future for all of its cameras. Of course, that can change if they can't build it cheap enough, but that's a major philosophical difference.

Then there is the Olympus 4/3 system which basically have lenses that are DX-like but with a different sensor size altogether.

07/30/2003 02:13:16 PM · #15
Originally posted by paganini:

There is a difference between Nikon and Canon on just philosophy issues.

Nikon seems to like the 1.5x crop factor for their chipsets. It's standardized. Nikon also came out with lenses for wide angle that will use that crop factor (which means the lens will not work with 35 mm film cameras, even though they will mount, meter, and autofocus correctly). You can bet that they won't attempt to do full frame for a while if they're coming out with lenses specifically for the 1.5x crop.

Canon does not. Canon has full frame (1Ds), 1.3x crop (1D), and 1.6x crop (10D/D60/D30). And Canon has not come out with a "DX" series wide angle lens similar to Nikon yet, so that pretty much means Canon is going for full frame at some point in the future for all of its cameras. Of course, that can change if they can't build it cheap enough, but that's a major philosophical difference.

Then there is the Olympus 4/3 system which basically have lenses that are DX-like but with a different sensor size altogether.



-blinks- Okay, that was probably something really helpful for me to know, but I can't figure out what it actually means. Help?
07/30/2003 02:40:09 PM · #16
Nikon have a new series of lenses that they produce that only work for their digital cameras, due to differences between the size of the digital sensor and a 35mm bit of film.

Some people see this as a flaw for digital that should be 'fixed' to try to get 35mm size digital sensors - this has the advantage of using lots of existing lenses 'as they were designed to be used'

Other people see it as an opportunity to move away from a legacy format, that requires more expensive lenses, heavier lenses based on an arbitary size (there is nothing magical about 35mm film as a size - it was an essentially arbitary format decision, based on other previous formats)

07/30/2003 03:08:43 PM · #17
So basically, if I get a Nikon, in the future, should I choose to go DSLR, I'll have to get new lenses; whereas if I go with Canon, I'll probably be able to use the same lens?
07/30/2003 04:32:57 PM · #18
No, that's not what I said :)

Canon assumes they can make 35 mm sensors in 2-3 years. I think that's their initiative. They haven't come out with a lens for digital specifically yet, and probably won't. If they miscalculated and can't build a 35 mm full frame sensor for the consumer market, then i think they'll revert their strategy and build lenses for the sensors.

Nikon, on the other hand, seems to think that 1.5x is fine and build 2 lenses for the sensor that won't work with film cameras. Of course, if Canon did produce a consumer camera full frame in 2-3 years (say $1500 camera?), then i think Nikon will play catchup and do it as well and then the DX lenses will be a bunch of expensive lenses that won't be used.

Neither of them will partcipate in the 4/3 system (Olympus) which is a new standard. Nikon's DX lenses does what 4/3 sytem does anyway, and if Canon has full frame available, then there is no incentive.

So there is a risk with either company: if you buy Canon, and they decide to go back to 1.6 or 1.3x sensors only, then they'll probably be a bit behind Nikon in terms of wide angle lenses. If you buy NIkon and buys their DX lenses and in the future they move to fullf rame, your DX lenses will not work.

What you should do is try both cameras in your hands and see how they feel, and see how they work. Unless you're into huge telephotos with IS and USM (which Canon has more lenses on), there really isn't a difference between them, just taste and brands.


Originally posted by Gracechild7:

So basically, if I get a Nikon, in the future, should I choose to go DSLR, I'll have to get new lenses; whereas if I go with Canon, I'll probably be able to use the same lens?
07/30/2003 04:45:34 PM · #19
It probably should also be pointed out, that if you buy a camera that uses DX lenses and at some point in the future Nikon decide to stop making more DX lenses - the ones you already have will still work......

It depends how much you care about using the system now, vs how much you feel it is an investment in equipment that you want to migrate to new camera bodies with later.

Message edited by author 2003-07-30 16:46:10.
07/30/2003 09:22:45 PM · #20
gracechild,

i don't agree that you should choose the body after you've chosen the lenses. The only reason imo that would ever be the case would be if you absolutely needed some specialty lenses that are only made by one particular brand, ie. ultra long focal length vibration dampened lenses for handheld low light wildlife photography (that cost thousands just for the lens).

that said, nikon has a special line of new lenses designed just for digital that address a certain limitation of digital cameras to use existing wide angle lenses to get the wideness they were designed for. so if that's of interest to you, that might bias you towards nikon-based cameras (which happen to be made by nikon, fuji AND kodak - a factor that someone who went nikon might appreciate, since, if your chosen brand's eventual upgrade model seemed lacking, you could look at the offerings of three other brands as options).

i wouldnt really care if those DX lenses won't work with a film camera. personally, i havent touched a film camera since i got a DSLR and i have no desire to sink money into one. your needs may differ, though. .

what *I* personally would do, would be to research all the leading bodies and look at: price, color rendition (important one for me), resolution, noise levels/iso abilities, ergonomics, focus capabilities. look on dpreview.com, and MOST IMPORTANT, look at all the sample pics from users that you can find, that will give you the real idea of what these cams are capable of.

i also have some opinions about different models, that if you want to hear you can PM me. I would also not be shy about recommending some of the previous generation models - for example, you can get killer deals on a used D60 or even D30, and just because new models came out, doesn't mean those cams don't still have the ability to take amazing pictures.

edit: oh you are looking specifically for a film camera. sorry , didnt see that before :)

Message edited by author 2003-07-30 21:29:27.
08/02/2003 10:55:15 PM · #21
After considering what my most helpful dpchallenge comrades have said, I went to the local camera store in the mall (just to pick some brains, not to buy) and I decided that I like Nikon better just in terms of the way it feels. The Canon Rebel GII that I tried was just... fat and bulky. And although the Nikon FM10 doesn't have an automatic setting, I already have a Press Here Dummy camera.

So I think Nikon is the way I'm going to go. Now I just need to consider if I want the FM10 (which I believe is the more recent version) or the FM2 which most of my friends swear by and it metalbody.

I also talked to the guy about getting a camera in which I would be able to take the lens of the 35mm body and put it on a digital body (which I think is what people were talking about before and is still WAY over my head). Basically what he said is that the digital camera I would theoretically be buying later that would take the lens would run me around 1600ish. I like photography, but not that much.

Anyways, just filling everyone in on what I'm deciding, and looking for any additional feedback. Thanks!
08/03/2003 10:56:39 PM · #22
What would be your price range exactly? And would this price be including a lens or just the body? I ask because the FM2 will cost, even used, more than the price of the FM10 with a lens new. Were you looking for a manual SLR? It's also worth noting lenses. AFG lenses will not work on either of those. AFD lenses do work on them, but some people find some of the AFD lenses a bit of a hassle for manual focusing. The best choice of lens for these would be the AIS lenses. Just something to think about if you ever did plan to move onto a DSLR. Have you thought about a newer SLR? The N65 or N75 would be a nice SLR to get into. And is fully compatible with all the newer Nikkor lenses, except of course for the DX lenses.
08/04/2003 08:34:55 PM · #23
well, your friends do appear to be buying fm2/n's, so...

i picked my baby up (fmdn/2 w/replaced shutter, nikkor 50mm f/1.8, and strap) for about 300 hundred. and that's in damned-near mint condition, with all the plastic caps bits and everything.

petra picked her's up, a black-body, for about 200 or a little less, with autofocus lens of some type. i forget what phyllis paid.

but, it should be pointed out that i am stickler for old technology. i don't want my slr telling me what to do. i want a nice simple durable work-horse of a camera, with no auto settings. that and the fact that i was already familiar with the fm series because my mother has one were the two reasons i went with the fm2. old technology is fine for me. manual focus ais lenses work perfectly. and it's got weight to it: feels less like i'm gonna break it.

but, i have met other people with fm2's, and they swear by them. so it seems like a good camera.

anyhow, i'm not posting here to annoy you grace, but i actually have a question and this thread is a good place for it.

i'm looking for a good second lens. ideally, the lens i have on the camera most of the time right now, a super-fast 50mm f/1.8 (goes to 22 as well), will become my secondary lens for low-light, etc. so i'm looking for a lense that will fit most bright-light applications, with a good range of zoom, and macro functionality.

here's the catch: it has to be old-school manual focus nikkor ais.

this one in particular has my eye. i was looking at the 35-200 variety of this lens as well, because it has higher zoom power, but as a result the macro requires greater distance (it works via a close focus ring at 35mm), and it's the next filter size up.

having a consistant filter size would be nice.

but my question is this: is having the close focus ring beneficial? does it make the macro work essentially the same at the other end of the spectrum as well? i would really prefer to able to get close to subjects, and if this is the case, that added range would be a very good thing for me.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/20/2021 06:24:35 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/20/2021 06:24:35 AM EST.